Translate

Showing posts with label filicide. Show all posts
Showing posts with label filicide. Show all posts

Sunday, 23 February 2020

The bright side of filicide

You don't deserve to live if just one of your parents wants you dead.

You don't deserve to keep your kid if its other parent wants it dead.

If you married someone who killed your kid, you obviously did the wrong thing by marrying that person who killed your kid.

If you never even married the other parent of your kid, then you shouldn't have had the kid at all.

But that's OK, the error corrected itself.
at No comments:
Labels:

Thursday, 21 January 2016

On a scale of 1 to 100, how likely are you to get justice in the matriarchal UK Family Courts if you are a father/husband?


Yet when the matter of custody arises, she shocks herself by invoking that which she most disparages, "the primitivism of the mother, her innate superiority, that voodoo in the face of which the mechanism of equal rights breaks down". She says: "They're my children. They belong to me."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_(play)

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 20 January 2016

BRITISH JUSTICE: Family Court Judge declares man guilty of a crime WITHOUT A CRIMINAL TRIAL


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/in-defence-of-lutfur-rahman.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/lutfur-rahmans-grounds-for-appeal.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/conclusive-evidence-judgement-against_27.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/if-police-dont-find-sufficient-evidence.html



Justice Jackson - not a criminal judge sitting in criminal court - off his own bat decided that Worthington is guilty, and that the Worthingtons' five surviving children should *not* return to them. 

 I invite you to consider the injustice of this assuming just for a moment that Paul Worthington is entirely innocent.

 What punishment does Justice Jackson deserve for forgetting fundamental legal principles and obviously having it in for Paul Worthington?
Why do we even need social workers anyway? If parents want to kill their children then they don't deserve any children, do they? Problem solved. These useless women cannot prevent children from being killed by their parent(s) and when they try they always end up committing a gross injustice such as the "satanic panic" children in the 1990s. 
In 1990, families on a council estate in north Manchester woke up to every parent's worst nightmare. With no warning, police and social workers had come to take their children.
Sixteen youngsters from the Langley estate near Rochdale were taken in to care - for what was to be a total of 34 years and four months. It was alleged they had been forced into devil worship and sexually abused.
At the time, there was a steady stream of newspaper stories based on rumours of secret satanic abuse taking place in Britain. But, after a year long investigation, the Rochdale parents were proved to be completely innocent.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4602302.stm

Allegations ranged from the sacrifice of human babies and robed devil worship to locking the children in cages and caves. None of the claims were ever proved.
It was Britain's Salem Witch Hunt.
This programme reveals the real story of how, at the end of the 20th Century, hysteria swept through our social services.
This was a total failure of "due process" and common sense with horrific results.
Sixteen children were kept in care without any contact with their parents for months and it took 10 years before the last child was released from care back to his family.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4595158.stm

Was Justice Jackson gallantly trying to protect these women by sacrificing the family life of the Worthingtons - who have five surviving children - for the sake of Social Services, better known as the SS?
    141. This is a more than usually troubling case. I have given anxious consideration to the question of whether the court's inquiry has been so degraded by the deficiencies in the initial investigation as to make it impossible to draw reliable conclusions. In the end, I have concluded that this is not the case in relation to the anal injuries. Unlike the position in relation to the broken leg, there is still a mass of contemporaneous information about the events of the night on which P died, even though procedures fell far short of good practice.

     142. Shorn to its essentials, the situation is one in which a healthy child with no medical condition or illness was put to bed by her mother one evening and brought downstairs eight hours later by her father in a lifeless state and with troubling injuries, most obviously significant bleeding from the anus. Careful assessment of the meticulous pathological and paediatric evidence has clearly established that the injuries were the result of trauma from outside the body.

     143. While, as already stated, the father is not called upon to prove anything, I cannot accept his evidence about the events surrounding P's collapse. I was not impressed by his account. His description of being woken by a cry and then removing P from her cot in a most unusual condition (clenched teeth, rigid body) before loosening her nappy and leaving her on the bed was puzzling. It is hard to understand why he should have loosened her nappy or why, having gone downstairs to get another nappy, he should have begun to go back to sleep without changing P while leaving her on the bed. There is also no explanation as to why he would then have reached out to touch P, when his whole object would on his account have been to keep her asleep as long as possible. Moreover, in the overall circumstances, the fact that this was the only occasion (according to the father) when he and P were in the bed together raises concern when taken together with the fact that P suffered injury on that very occasion. Overall, the sequence of events that the father describes is unconvincing as an account of a parent comforting a distressed child in normal circumstances.

     144. I have observed the father, not only in the witness box but in the courtroom. In contrast to the mother, who became emotional at understandable points during the hearing, the father's presentation was unusual. He spent large parts of each day in tears and took every opportunity to make eye contact with me from the back of the court as a way of emphasising his predicament. I do not attach much significance to this behaviour during an undoubtedly emotional hearing, but it was nonetheless unusual in my experience.

     145. It is not possible to reconstruct the exact sequence of events that led to P's collapse without a truthful account from the father. All that can be said is that at some point after 2 am he removed P from her cot and took off her pyjama bottoms and her nappy. He then inserted his penis or another object into her anus, causing her injury. He probably replaced the nappy, which P filled with faeces at some point before or at the time that she collapsed. The father then realised what he had done and sought help.

     146. While it is true that what has happened in this case is extremely unlikely, the position is not to be compared with cases of sudden infant death that occur without any clear signs of abuse. As has been said elsewhere, there is no logical or necessary connection between seriousness and probability. The improbability of the father assaulting P in this way must give way to the evidence that establishes that she was in fact assaulted. As to the argument that this was a crowded house, the fact remains that the father had the clear opportunity to carry out the assault, however risky it might have been. On his own account, the presence of two very young sleeping children in his own bedroom did not stop him from watching pornography.

     147. Nor am I influenced by the mother's description of hearing the father going to P. In the circumstances, this is the only normal interpretation that would be likely to occur to her. The most that I gather from the mother's evidence is that the father was moving about. Further to this, I think it likely that the father did experience P going rigid and gritting her teeth, but sadly this will have been in the context of an assault upon her.

     148. The father's arguments about the absence of evidence deserve serious consideration. In fairness to him, I approach matters on the broad working assumption that any inquiry that should have been carried out, but was not, would have produced a negative result. For example, that nothing concerning would have been found on his laptop, that his DNA would not have been found in the last nappy, and that other items were properly preserved and tested with negative results. In the circumstances, he is entitled to these assumptions. Likewise, there is a credible innocent explanation for the presence of DNA on the shaft of his penis.

     149. Nevertheless, even though Mr Scarborough would have expected further positive results following an act of anal rape, the forensic evidence does not exonerate the father in the manner claimed. Rather, it affects the probabilities and has to be set against all the other evidence.

     150. With regard to the absence of P's DNA from the tip of the father's penis, this does not negate penetration by the penis as any DNA may have been lost by washing or ordinary movement; nor of course does it negate penetration by other means. The non-production of sperm that may have followed the father's vasectomy could reduce the likelihood of seminal fluid being detected, particularly as five days had passed before the swabs were taken in a suboptimal way. The absence of any report of P's blood in the bedroom or living room would seem at first sight to be highly significant, but has to be taken along with the evidence that clearly establishes that she was bleeding in the ambulance moments later.

     151. These matters weigh heavily in the father's favour, but I find that, when placed in the balance, they are ultimately outweighed by the fact that P suffered injuries causing substantial bleeding from the anus and that she collapsed for no plausible reason. The only explanation for those stubborn facts is that she suffered anal penetration and the only person who could realistically have done this to her was her father.

     152. I find that the father perpetrated a penetrative anal assault on P, either using his penis or some other unidentified object.
Is Justice Jackson some sort of legal authority on the correct way of changing nappies?

 Is this what passes for "the rule of law" in Britain?

 Is "the British rule of law" changing the rules while the game is still being played?

 What is the most important rule of law that you can think of?

 Surely it must be the right to be treated as innocent till found guilty after a fair trial?

 Shall we allow members of the judiciary who seem to know more than they should about changing nappies than is thought proper for a High Court judge who forgets which court he is sitting in to ignore long-standing English legal traditions such as a trial by jury and the criminal standard of proof to convict a man of a crime?


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Monday, 5 May 2014

Was Medea rational and moral to kill her children (whom she loved) to have her revenge on her husband Jason?


MEDEA
      Oh Zeus, and Justice, child of Zeus,
      and flaming Helios—now, my friends,
      we'll triumph over all my enemies.                                               910
      The plans I've made have been set in motion.
      I'm confident my enemies will pay,
      they'll get their punishment. For at the point
      when I was most in trouble, this man came
      and helped me plan safe harbour for myself.
      I'll lash my ship's cable to Aegeus,                                                       [770]
      once I've made it to Athena's city.
      Now I'll tell you all the things I'm planning—
      though you'll get little pleasure from my words.
      I'm going to send one of my household slaves                              920
      to ask Jason to come and visit me.
      Once he's here, my words will reassure him.
      I'll tell him I agree with what he's doing,
      that leaving me for this royal alliance
      is a fine idea—he's acted properly
      and made the right decisions. Then I'll ask                                          [780]
      if my children can remain. My purpose
      is not to leave them in a hostile land
      surrounded by insulting enemies,
      but a trick to kill the daughter of the king.                                   930
      For I'll send the children to her with gifts.
      They'll carry presents for the bride, as if
      requesting to be spared their banishment—
      a finely woven robe and a tiara
      of twisted gold. If she accepts those presents
      and puts them on, she'll die—and painfully.
      And so will anyone touching the girl.
      I've smeared strong poisons on those gifts.
      So much for that. I'll say no more about her.                                       [790]
      But the next thing I'll do fills me with pain—                              940
      I'm going to kill my children. There's no one
      can save them now. And when I've done this,
      wiped out Jason's house completely, I'll leave,
      evading the punishment I'd receive
      for murdering my darling children,
      a sacrilegious crime. You see, my friends,
      I won't accept my enemies' contempt.
      So be it. What good does life hold for me now?
      I have no father, no home, no refuge.
      I was wrong to leave my father's house,                                       950    [800]
      won over by the words of that Greek man,
      who now, with the gods' help, will pay the price.
      He'll never see his children alive again,
      the ones I bore him, nor have more children
      with his new bride, for she's been marked to die
      an agonizing death, poisoned by my drugs.
      Let no one think that I'm a trivial woman,
      a feeble one who sits there passively.
      No, I'm a different sort—dangerous
      to enemies, but well disposed to friends.                                      960
      Lives like mine achieve the greatest glory.       


Let us assume we all have children to gain a kind of quasi immortality. 

Because she did what she did, we know who she is. 

If she had gone into exile meekly and without a fuss, we wouldn't be talking about her now, even if her sons went on to do very well for themselves through becoming kings who ruled their kingdoms fairly and well, or even going on to become great conquerors.  

It is through killing her sons that she achieved immortality.

Wouldn't a feminist agree with this line of reasoning?  

at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

Abuse of the retarded in care homes

Secret filming caught patients being dragged and slapped by support workers

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13548222

Simon, one of the adult inmates with the age of a 4 year old, was returned home to his family after footage of his ill-treatment was shown to his parents.  I wonder if they ever threaten to send him back to Winterbourne View whenever he misbehaves.  Indeed, I wonder if his family now secretly curse the Panorama reporter for bringing his abuse to their attention, and making them feel obliged to take him back to live with them.  I know I would be. I know how ashamed and disgusted with myself I would be that anything that came out of me would be such a trouble to those around him that filicide would be the only honorable option.    

I know this is not how the British think, but this is how I think.

It costs the taxpayer £3,500 per week to keep these inmates in these homes. In March I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show  that if I had a severely disabled baby I would smother it if the midwife would not do so for me.

I stand by that statement.

It seems that while the government wrings its hands about how it can no longer afford to to pay for these people to be kept in these uncaring homes, and the uncaring homes cannot find good caring staff to run these homes, I am still condemned for saying what I did.

Such is the contemptible hypocrisy and cowardice of the British and their government.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/05/gang-of-disabled-people-victimise.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/05/disabled-people-against-claire-khaw.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/03/is-it-always-right-to-keep-them-very.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/03/claire-khaw-on-victoria-derbyshire-show.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/05/unlike-others-i-dont-it-is-disaster-at.html
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/05/in-context-jeffrey-marshalls-comments.html 
at 14 comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...